Basic Rights for Apes: Campaign to Change Germany's
Constitution

7 May 2014

Image: Jutta Hof

Volker Sommer, Professor of Evolutionary
Anthropology at UCL, is one of the main activists behind the initiative to
enlarge the "community of equals" and grant basic legal rights to our
closest living relatives, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

A first concerted effort to have the
German constitution changed will be announced on May 8th, 2014, during a press
conference in Berlin's Bundespressehaus. The podium will include prominent
philosophers and animal rights lawyers. The press conference coincides with a
petition to the Deutscher Bundestag.* At least 50.000 signatures are needed to
trigger a public hearing of the petition committee of the German parliament.

The organisers are aware that they may
not achieve this goal at first attempt, but view this as part of a long-term
strategy. Nevertheless, since its launch three years ago, the campaign has
gathered much momentum and sparked a lively public debate in Germany. Numerous
media, from TV to Radio to broadsheet and tabloid newspapers as well as
magazines have carried major stories on the subject. Prominent politicians of
virtually all parties have felt the need to provide statements on the subject,
both pro and con. Germany's leading political magazine, "Der
Spiegel", will carry an interview with Volker Sommer that coincides with
the press conference.

Fundamental Rights for Great Apes - A
Brief History

Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola
Cavalieri initiated “The Great Ape Project” in 1993. It demands to extend some
of the privileges currently reserved for human beings to orangutans, gorillas,
bonobos and chimpanzees: the right to life, the right to individual liberty,
and the prohibition of torture. These demands are basic and they remain
measured – because nobody requests a right to education for bonobos, voting
rights for gorillas, data-protection rules for chimpanzees or a minimum age for
sexual consent amongst orangutans. Supported by eminent primatologists, the
Great Ape Project simply wants to expand the “community of equals” in certain
aspects. For example, it should be unlawful to inflict pain on great apes for
the alleged benefit of others – as is done in biomedical experiments. Moreover,
their freedom should not be arbitrarily deprived – although it is recognised
that, for their own good, apes born in captivity might need to be kept in a zoo
or in a sanctuary where they were brought to as orphans after hunters had
killed their mothers. Defenders of the project would also like to see that
great apes are recognized as “persons”, given that their complex mental
landscape includes consciousness, emotions and sophisticated cognitive
abilities such as forward planning and empathy.

Demanding basic equality for great apes
is the logical extension of a historical trend. Ethical sentiments amongst
humans were first restricted to one’s own relatives, then extended to clans,
later to members of larger societies, and eventually to all people – with the
UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why should we stop short here and ignore the
interests of beings that experience suffering and joy in ways very similar to
us – merely because they are not human beings? Humans have strived to defeat
nationalism, racism and sexism. We believe the historic moment has come to
overcome a further barrier – that of "speciesism", which justifies
discrimination based on species membership. (Of course, some would like to
extend equality to many other animals as well – whereas others assert that we
should presently only go as far as to include all great apes. In any case,
working towards the goals of the Great Ape Project does not mean we stop
considering the fair treatment of other animals.)

Interests of humans unable to speak up
for themselves – such as infants or those afflicted by conditions such as
Alzheimer’s – are represented by guardians. Guardians can therefore also
safeguard the legal rights of great apes.

As Albert Schweitzer put it, we are
“life that wants to live, in the midst of life that wants to live.” This
premise should be reflected in a more responsible approach to the lives of
non-human animals – and especially in our relationship with those organisms
with whom we share a close evolutionary history.